Full Comment Forum: Anyone up for a pint of Albino Rhino? Or is that ‘crazy’?

Human Rights Commissions: Anyone up for a pint of Albino Rhino at Earls? Or is that 'crazy'?

Two citizens with albinism, a serious genetic disorder that results in partial or total absence of pigment in the hair or skin, have lodged a human rights complaint against Earls, a western Canadian chain of restaurants that sells its own in-house brew of beer — “Albino Rhino.” The citizens allege that this name is discriminatory against those that suffer from the disease. “People aren’t allowed to order Alzheimer’s appetizers, multiple sclerosis martinis and cerebral palsy cocktails, so why should they be able to order albino chicken wings?” one told Postmedia News. This seems a frivolous human rights complaint, but are they perhaps badly expressing a legitimate gripe? Should serious medical conditions always be off limits for any commercial or playful use, if only by conventions of good taste and not the force of law?

Matt Gurney in Toronto: I imagine if I had albinism, I’d probably be annoyed by Albino Rhino beer, and the related albino chicken wings, offered by Earls. But I can’t imagine that I would ever think to lodge a complaint with an HRC about it. Isn’t that what social media and letter writing campaigns are for? I tend to get touchy at the best of times when people meddle with my beer drinking choices, but this is a bit beyond that. The complainants have an argument here, but it’s not the one they’re making. Albino Rhino beer is arguably insensitive and insulting, maybe even ignorant (I am not offended by it, but I’ll grant the point, for sake of argument). Earls could maybe be convinced to drop the name on those grounds, maybe not. And if not, the complainants could certainly take their business elsewhere and encourage others to do the same. So, yeah, dumb human rights complaint, but defensible gripe.

But what I found interesting is that lots of places already use insulting medical terms, or at least insensitive ones. I’ve seen coffee shops that sell insomnia lattes — so much caffeine you’ll be awake all night! But I’ve battled insomnia for years, and when you get into a real bad phase (mostly behind me, thank God), it’s awful and has real physical consequences. Or there was the Diabetes Cupcake I saw for sale once — so sweet it’d give you diabetes. But diabetes is a serious medical condition, dammit. It effects millions and can kill! And then, of course, there are any number of outlets that sell heart attack burgers, dripping with cheese and delicious, mouth-watering smoked bacon. And maybe some crispy onions. What point was I making again? The bacon and onions side tracked me. Oh, right: Heart attacks are bad. Heart-attack burgers are insulting to all those who have survived serious coronary events. And to the families of those who haven’t survived. Isn’t there someway the state can prevent my feelings from being hurt?

Kidding aside, none of these things offended me. And while I probably wouldn’t order a cerebral palsy cocktail, mainly because it just sounds plain unappetizing, maybe I would order an Alzheimer’s Cocktail — so strong you won’t remember the rest of your night. See? I’m figuring out how to brand this already. The problem here, beyond the fact that some citizens are so quick to go for the nuclear option of the courts or HRCs, is that good taste is not only a subjective target, but a constantly moving one. Absolutely there is a line that can be crossed before something just seems like a bad idea, but I’m not convinced that Albino Rhino beer crosses it. It just seems way too manifestly playful and silly to be taken seriously. I mean, it rhymes. Rhymes are never hurtful.

Barbara Kay in Montreal: I think our Dear Editor made the point a few weeks back about the slippery slope of language when dealing with minority sensitivities. I remember him saying that the word “retarded” came into common usage because words like “idiot” were beginning to sound offensive, and to our ears today it does sound horrible. But now you can’t say “retarded” because it is offensive, even though objectively speaking it describes a reality with what I would consider neutral language.

I have always thought the word “albino” was descriptive of the outward appearance of people who suffer from a lack of pigment. Until this story arose, I hadn’t seen it in the light of the disease behind the effect. And yes, I quite understand how people suffering from the disease would be offended. But I am with Matt in resisting the urge to hand this off to power-drunk human rights types as arbiters of what words can be used and what can’t in a private establishment. There are many ways to shame owners. A few vocal protests outside one of the restaurants with lots of media coverage and some customers saying they will never return unless the name is changed ought to do the trick.

In addition to the good examples Matt offers as equally offensive epithets, like “coronary” burgers and the like (didn’t somebody with a heart condition just drop dead lately while eating one?), one could offer the word “crazy”, as in “Crazy Glue” or the card game “crazy eights.” I don’t think anyone is going to want to name their pub the “Manic-Depressive Hearth” because it doesn’t roll trippingly off the tongue, but what about a music group called the “Bayou Blues” or some word that suggests a depressed mood? Where is the line between a linguistic derivative for a transient state of mind — “You’re driving me crazy!” — that happens at a distant remove to be associated with an official medical disorder — and a direct insult to an actual disorder or even a racial insult? There are language czars in the educational scene that monitor the words “white” and “black” with, well, crazy rigour to make sure no child can take offence at what the word is describing. There have been complaints about words like “blackmail” because it is alleged to associate a vice with skin colour. This is one of those slippery slope issues that we should resist the urge to settle by fiat.

I agree with Matt that the market itself will dictate the solution.

Matt Gurney, cutting in out of order for just a second: Barbara, as you know, my wife is a teacher. I get a look into how rapidly politically correct language evolves, because new “neutral” terms are rapidly tainted by their association with unfortunate things, and therefore become stigmatized. I recently learned that the new approved term for cognative and mental defects, what would once have been called retardation or learning disabilities, is “exceptionalities.” So I’m guessing the next one will be “spectacularisms.” And then “fantasticos.” OK, sorry to have cut off …

Marni Soupcoff in Toronto: You guys have a lot more patience than I do. The moment I read “Human Rights Commission,” I didn’t care what Earls had called its beer or chicken wings. It could have called them the worst racial epithets out there and I still wouldn’t be sympathetic to the idea that the government should get involved in censoring the names of pub food.

I have no problem with language czars that don’t wield government power. Want to create an awareness-raising campaign about the evils of using black as an adjective? Go for it. Want to boycott Earls or protest in front of it, as Barbara suggests? Be my guest. But you’re going to have to get voluntary buy-in. There is no excuse for actually compromising a person’s liberty because of their choice of language. Especially with the lack of due process afforded people brought before human rights commissions.

That said, it is worth noting that the woman with albinism who brought the complaint was born in Nigeria, a country where people with albinism are often persecuted and even murdered for their body parts because witchdoctors use them in potions. She’s bound to be legitimately more sensitive about her condition than the average North American with albinism. But her level of sensitivity is (or should be) irrelevant to the legality of Earls’ naming choice. The law is not well-suited to protecting people from being offended. This is one of the biggest problems with human rights commissions. They are set up to act on the feelings of the accusers, rather than the actions of the accused.